Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. The petitioners seek the quashing of FIR No. 572 dated 28-10-2006 registered at Police Station, City Palwal, District Faridabad, under Sections 494, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR registered against the petitioners reads as under : "To The Superintendent of Police, Palwal (Rural), Sir, It is humbly stated that I applicant Gian Chandi w/o Ram Pal, am resident of Seloti Tehsil Palwal, District Faridabad. Sir, Tej Pal and Ram Pal were two real brothers. I was married to Tej Pal s/o Shri Nathi. Around 10 years ago my first husband Tej Pal expired. His brother Ram Pal s/o Nathi neither has any living wife nor any child. Thereafter Nathi s/o Dharma my father-in-law also expired. Thereafter the respectable of the village and relatives get me wear bangles (karewa) from Ram Pal s/o late Shri Nathi. Since then I am living with him as his wife. Now some bad social elements and selfish persons have started to mislead my husband Ram Pal s/o Nathi with the intention to grab the property, which includes Sher Singh of Raidaska presently resident of Ram Nagar Palwal who had hatched a conspiracy by performing illegal and fictious marriage of his sister-in-law; some other persons present are also involved in the conspiracy with Sher Singh who by presenting themselves as police employees are threatening. Further Sher Singh etc. has got the land from my husband sold, and has grabbed all amount of Rs. 23 lacs and now they want to take possession of the house constructed by my husband in Ram Nagar, Palwal. A meeting of the panches of the village and all the relatives was held, in which I requested for justice then all of them got understand my husband and these selfish persons; at that time my husband was advised not to repeat the mistake again; but again those selfish persons got involved with my husband and the local police is also pressuring me to evict me from the house of my husband. Sir, I pray with folded hand that I should be given justice and case should be registered against Sher Singh etc. I shall be highly thankful to you. Accused have somewhere concealed my husband with bad intention. Applicant Sd/- RTI Gian Chandi w/o Ram Pal. Sir, I pray with folded hand that I should be given justice and case should be registered against Sher Singh etc. I shall be highly thankful to you. Accused have somewhere concealed my husband with bad intention. Applicant Sd/- RTI Gian Chandi w/o Ram Pal. Police Action : Application bearing No. 1720-P dated 11.10.06 was received from the office of Suprintendent of Police, Palwal from Gian Chandi R/O Seloti on which D.S.P. marked the same to I/C P.P. Camp to register a case after opinion from D.A. ASI Mahipal gave application to DA for opinion which was obtained in police post along with the opinion of D.A. In which D.A. has written as follows. I have gone through the contents of the complaint. The brief facts of the complaint is that Smt. Gian Chandi w/o Tej Pal has been remarried with Ram Pal 10 years ago after the death of her husband Tej Pal. Ram Pal remained with Smt. Gian Chandi 10 years as her husband with together. 5 Acres of land in the name of Ram Pal and he had sold 3 acres of land and remained with a lady Geeta D/O Atru on 15.5.06. So, an offence under section 494 IPC is made out against Ram Pal. Matter enquiry is suggested that the evidence be collected." 2. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that cognizance of offence in respect of Section 494 IPC cannot be taken on the basis of challan filed by the Police. 3. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that no complaint has been filed by the respondent No. 2 in respect of offence under Section 494 IPC in the Court. 4. In support of this contention, learned senior counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2002(3) RCR(Criminal) 489, wherein this Court was pleased to lay down as under : "5. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be genuine one. Section 1998 Cr. P.C. debars the police from taking cognizance of such an offence since it is shown to be a non-cognizable one, nor the Ilaqa Magistrate could take cognizance of the offence on the police report. Section 198 Cr. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be genuine one. Section 1998 Cr. P.C. debars the police from taking cognizance of such an offence since it is shown to be a non-cognizable one, nor the Ilaqa Magistrate could take cognizance of the offence on the police report. Section 198 Cr. P.C. empowers taking cognizance of an offence under Section 494/495 IPC by the Magistrate only upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved of the offence. Section 198(c) Crl. P.C. provides as under : "Prosecution for offences against marriage. - (1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the office. Provided that - (a) xxx xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx xxx (c) Where the person aggrieved by an offence under Section 494 or Section 495 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is the wife, complaint may be made on her behalf by her father, mother, brother, sister, son or daughter or by her fathers or mothers brother or sister, or sister or with the leave of the Court by any other person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption." 6. Admittedly, no complaint was made before the Magistrate by the aggrieved person, at all i.e. by Sinder Kaur respondent No. 2. The action of respondent No. 3 ASI Karnail Singh in taking cognizance of the offence and making a report to the Magistrate was without any jurisdiction. Similarly, taking of the cognizance by the Magistrate on such a report was also against the provisions of section 198 Cr. P.C." 5. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Honble Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Kumkum Saxena v. Sessions Judge, Rampur, 2003(1) CRC(Criminal) 293 and the judgment of the Honble Karnataka High Court in the case of S.G. Malikarjun v. Smt. Asha, 2004(4) RCR(Criminal) 795 which are to the similar effect. 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners also contended that the allegations made in FIR even if taken on their face value, do not constitute any offence under Section 420, IPC. 7. 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners also contended that the allegations made in FIR even if taken on their face value, do not constitute any offence under Section 420, IPC. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, however, contended that an offence under Section 420 IPC is clearly made out against the petitioners as petitioner No. 1 is said to have sold the land which did not belong to him. 8. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the State made reference to the averments made in the written statement filed by SHO, Police Station, Palwal, on behalf of respondent No. 1. Para No. 1 of the reply on which reliance was placed reads as under : "1. That brief facts of the case are that Nathi, father of the petitioner No. 1 resident of village Seloti, Tehsil Palwal, District Faridabad was having two sons namely Ram Pal petitioners No. 1 and Tej Pal and one daughter Ram Pali was married at Village Gangola in U.P. and Tej Pal was married with respondent No. 3 Gian Chandi while Ram Pal i.e. Petitioner No. 1 remained unmarried. Out of the wedlock, respondent No. 2 Gian Chand and Tej Pal, three sons naively Ashok, Sanjay and Braham Singh and one daughter were born and Tej Pal expired in the year 1995 and after the death of Tej Pal, Nathi, grand-father of the children of Tej Pal and father of Ram Pal petitioner No. 1 transferred his agricultural land measuring about 10 Acres in favour of sons of Tej Pal through the decree of the Court and after some time, Gian Chandi was married with Ram Pal as Kareva marriage as per prevailing customs in Hindus in Village community and Gian Chandi and Petitioner No. 1 Ram Pal lived together as husband and wife in the village for about 9/10 years. In between that, petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 met with petitioner No. 1 Ram Pal and instigated the petitioner No. 1 to get the land of his share i.e. 1/2 share out of the total land which was transferred by Nathi, the father of petitioner No. 1 to his grand children (sons of Tej Pal) and at the instance of the petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 met with petitioner No. 1 Ram Pal and instigated the petitioner No. 1 to get the land of his share i.e. 1/2 share out of the total land which was transferred by Nathi, the father of petitioner No. 1 to his grand children (sons of Tej Pal) and at the instance of the petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 the petitioner No. 1 filed a civil suit against Ashok, Sanjay and Braham Singh son of Tej Pal and challenged the judgment and decree dated 30.4.99 of Civil Suit No. 85 of 1999 and the Honble Court of Shri Jagjit Singh, HCS, Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Palwal vide judgment dated 24.1.2005 set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.4.99 but the defendants Ashok and others sons of Tej Pal challenged the judgment and decree dated 24.1.2005 and filed an appeal before the ld. District Judge, Faridabad but in between the respected persons of the village got compromised the matter between the parties and as such petitioner No. 1 became the owner and in possession of 5 Acres of land vide judgment dated 19.8.2005 and when the petitioner No. 1 became the owner of 5 acres of land situated in village Seloti, then petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 with an intention to grab the land of the petitioner No. 1 got separated respondent No. 2 from the petitioner No. 1 and a fake and fictitious marriage of petitioner No. 1 was arranged with Girraji @ Geeta who was mother of four children i.e. three daughters and one son and widow of Shri Rajbir resident of Village Pawla, District Bhagpat, U.P. and instigated petitioner No. 1 to sell out three acres of agricultural land situated in village Seloti for sale consideration of Rs. 23,000/- and also asked the petitioner No. 1 to buy a plot in Ram Nagar Palwal. Before arranging the false and fictitious marriage with Girraji @ Geeta with an intention to extract money from the petitioner No. 1, they also managed an affidavit from Girraji @ Geeta regarding her marriage with Ram Pal but as soon as Girraji @ Geeta came to know that Ram Pal is an old man of about 60/65 years, then she refused to live with petitioner No. 1 and not only this but the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 also compelled Girraji @ Geeta to sell out the ancestral agricultural property of her husband Rajbir and they also grabbed the money received from the property owned by Shri Rajbir in village Pawla, District Bhagpat, U.P. And when Girraji @ Geeta refused to stay with petitioner No. 1 as his wife, then all the petitioners and Neeraj r/o Soraj, Kiran, Lakhmiri, Nirmal mother and Bhabhi of Girraj i @ Geeta threatened to kill Girraj i @ Geeta along with her children and against this threat, Girraji @ Geeta recorded an FIR No. 14 dated 11.1.2007 under Sections 323/342/370/506 IPC against the above named persons in P.S. Sohna which shows that petitioners alongwith other persons named above, not only committed the offence of cheating against respondent No. 2 by separating petitioner No. 1 from the company of respondent No. 2 and also by selling out three acres of ancestral land of her father-in-law i.e. Nathi but also cheated Geeta @ Girraji by selling out ancestral agricultural land of her husband Rajbir with the pretext of false and fictitious marriage with petitioner No. 1 as petitioner No. 2 is brother in law of Geeta @ Girraji (Jija) and petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 are brothers of Girraji @ Geeta and other persons named above are also close relative of Girraji @ Geeta but all being in criminal conspiracy with each other they sold out the ancestral agricultural land of her husband Rajbir situated in Village Pawla, Bagpat (U.P.) and they grabbed money received from the sale consideration of agricultural land owned by her husband Rajbir. Hence in these circumstances, the present petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as all the persons named above are liable to be prosecuted for the offence committed by them." 9. The contents of the above reply or the allegations levelled in the FIR do not constitute any offence as petitioner No. 1 is alleged to have sold the land which fell to his share. The selling of the land by the owner thereof does not constitute any offence under Section 420, IPC as is sought to be contended. The contents of the above reply or the allegations levelled in the FIR do not constitute any offence as petitioner No. 1 is alleged to have sold the land which fell to his share. The selling of the land by the owner thereof does not constitute any offence under Section 420, IPC as is sought to be contended. As no offence is disclosed against the petitioners, even if the allegations are taken on their face value and the cognizance of offence under Section 494 is specifically barred, the FIR and subsequent proceedings, therefore, are nothing but misuse of the process of the Court. Consequently, this petition is allowed. The FIR and subsequent proceedings are ordered to be quashed.